Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

[See p. 726.]

April 5, 1866.

[Senate Report No. 58.]

Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of James G. Clarke, have had the same under consideration, and now submit the following report:

Toward the close of the summer of 1856 Hon. J. J. Seibels, then minister resident of the United States in Belgium, received from the Department of State permission to quit his post for a leave of absence at home, provided he should find a citizen of the United States competent, in all respects, to fulfill the duties of the mission during this period, to whom he was by the Department authorized in advance to transfer the seals of the legation, the choice of the person being left, as is customary, to the judgment of the minister. Mr. Seibels appointed for this purpose Mr. Clarke (giving his reasons for so doing in a dispatch dated September 18, 1856), an American gentleman, who had already passed several months in Brussels, and whom he had previously induced to accept an unpaid attachéship, in which connection Mr. Clarke had already rendered various service to the mission, especially from his facility in speaking and writing the French.

Thus authorized by the Department of State, the minister resident undertook, in taking leave of the minister of foreign affairs in Belgium, on the 18th September, 1856, to present to him Mr. Clarke as the duly appointed chargé d'affaires ad interim, placing him, by this act, in official relations with the Government of the King. On the same day the archives and property of the legation were committed to his care by the minister, and Mr. Clarke assumed the responsibility of the rent of the furnished house which had been occupied by him, and by his predecessor, as the residence of the legation. Immediately after this Mr. Seibels left for the United States, assuring Mr. Clarke that on his arrival in Washington he would at once procure an official sanction of the appointment by the Secretary of State (Mr. Marcy), and accordingly, after an interview with the latter, wrote to Mr. Clarke to say that the Secretary had sanctioned the appointment, with the assurance that he should be recognized as chargé d'affaires. With this understanding Mr. Seibels continued his journey to Alabama, where he spent the leave granted him, and procured its extension to the 11th June, 1857, when, in place of returning to his post, he sent in his resignation. Mr. Marcy, in the meanwhile, overlooked the confirmation of the appointment which, it is understood, he had approved; while Mr. Clarke, sensitive about his position, sought, through the minister in Alabama, to remind the Secretary of his omission. The neglect was not, however, repaired in the last months of Mr. Marcy's service, nor did it receive the attention of Mr. Cass during his three months of office which preceded the 11th of June, 1857, when Mr. Seibels's resignation left Mr. Clarke to await by every mail, for a period of fifteen months, the announcement of his successor.

The President, however, failed to name anyone until the autumn of 1858, so that Mr. Clarke, expecting weekly to be relieved and to return to the United States, deferred offering any demand for salary until he should know the duration of his period of service.

When he reached Washington, in January, 1859, he was informed by the Department of State, and very unexpectedly to himself, that,

as no confirmation of the appointment had been made, he had only to address himself to Congress, which he immediately did. Mr. Mason, then chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, on referring to the Department of State for the facts in the case, received an answer from the Secretary, Mr. Cass, which closes as follows:

While the propriety of granting to Mr. Clarke the compensation he claims is left entirely to your committee, I deem it but justice to that gentleman to express the conviction that he performed the duties assigned to him by Mr. Seibels faithfully and creditably, during the period specified in his memorial, which, in accordance with your request, is herewith returned.

A letter addressed at this period by the minister, Mr. Seibels, to Mr. Cass, will show both the character of the service rendered by Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Seibels's appreciation of them. He writes (January 17, 1859) as follows:

Upon granting me leave of absence from my post at Brussels, as minister resident of the United States, in the autumn of 1856, your predecessor instructed me to be careful to leave the property of the legation in safe hands. There being no consul of the United States at Brussels, and our countrymen requiring daily official attention, it seemed to me indispensable that the legation should be kept open for their benefit, if for no other purpose. Fortunately, at the time I had attached to it, and acting as secretary, a gentleman whose education, intelligence, and high character fully commended him to me as a most suitable person to take charge of the seals of the legation, for, as I then supposed, but a brief period. This was Mr. James G. Clarke, whom I now commend to your favorable consideration.

He is a gentleman of the highest attainments, speaking with the ease, fluency, and accuracy of a native French, German, and Italian-in fact, most of the continental languages.

I have the best evidence before me that he discharged the duties during the time the legation was in his care, a period of two years, with signal success, both as regards his intercourse with the Belgian Government and our own countrymen. Upon my arrival at Washington, in October, 1856, I acquainted Mr. Marcy of the manner in which I had disposed of the legation, and he gave it his sanction, and said that Mr. Clarke should be recognized in the capacity I left him; that is, chargé d'affaires ad interim. Whether this has been done or not I do not know; but such are the facts, and I so informed Mr. Clarke at the time.

He now claims compensation of the Government for his services during the period he had charge of the legation and its property, and upon every principle of justice and equity I think him entitled to it; and, as I have been instrumental in his employment for the public service, I feel an interest that the Department should bring his claims to the favorable notice of Congress and recommend the necessary compensation.

Mr. Clarke, obliged soon after to return to Europe, in May, 1859, thus left his petition in the hands of Mr. Mason, not doubting that, for services rendered during a period of over two years, and for outlays much greater in an official position than he would have incurred as a private person, he would be promptly remunerated and reimbursed. But Mr. Mason, occupied, possibly, with graver matters, neglected the interests thus intrusted to him, so that Mr. Clarke, when he again returned to the United States, was forced to offer a second petition to Congress, presented a year ago.

A note was on this occasion addressed to the Secretary of State, requesting the facts, to which Mr. Seward replied as follows:

From a reference to the files of the Department, it appears that the statements in the memorial, which is herewith returned, are entirely correct, with the exception of a slight inaccuracy, which, in justice to the memorialist, it is deemed proper to mention, namely, that his period of service was extended to the 27th instead of the 3d of September, 1855, the former being the date at which the successor of Mr. Siebels assumed the duties of the legation at Brussels, and on which Mr. Clarke relinquished them. The Department has heretofore borne testimony to the faithful and creditable manner in which the duties assigned him by Mr. Seibels were performed by Mr. Clarke during the entire period of his service, and his claim for compensation, as now presented, would appear to be equitable and entitled to the consideration of Congress.

Thus, it appears, that Mr. Clarke, through the appointment of the minister resident, and by the sanction of the Secretary of State, remained solely in charge of the United States legation in Belgium from the 18th September, 1856, the day on which the seals were transferred to his custody, to the 27th September, 1858, the date of his substitution by another minister, making in all a period of two years and nine days. During this period he not only gave his time and services, corresponded with the Department, fulfilled the instructions received from it, but continued to hire the residence which had, during two missions, been occupied by the legation, and defrayed from his private means the many expenses incident to representation and to diplomatic life; so that to grant the claim he now offers is perhaps little more than to reimburse him for his extraordinary outlays, considering the time which has elapsed, and the interest which has accrued on the sums thus expended in the service of the Government.

It should not be overlooked that Mr. Clarke demands no compensation for the nine months during which the minister continued to hold his commission and to receive his salary; that he requests Congress to remunerate him only from the date of Mr. Siebels's resignation to that of the arrival in Belgium of a new minister, a lapse of fifteen months. And should Congress refuse to Mr. Clarke the compensation and reimbursement for which he prays, it would be to place the Government in the position of allowing the services and the expenses of the legation in Belgium to be incurred, for the period in question, by a private citizen.

The pay of a chargé d'affaires, fixed by act of Congress, is at the rate of $5,000 a year. The following letter from the Secretary of State furnishes the estimates for the amount due Mr. Clarke:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 28, 1865. SIR: Pursuant to your oral request, I have the honor to inclose a precise statement of the sum necessary to be appropriated for payment of the claim of Mr. James G. Clarke, for services as acting chargé d'affaires at Brussels.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. CHARLES SUMNER,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate.

[blocks in formation]

The committee report a bill for the relief of Mr. Clarke, founded on these estimates from the Department of State.

FORTIETH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.

July 21, 1868.

[Senate Report No. 182.]

Mr. Sumner, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the memorial of James C. Pickett, with the accompanying papers, have had the same under consideration, and ask leave to submit the following report:

The facts in this case, as stated by Mr. Pickett in his memorial, are

briefly these: In 1838 he was appointed chargé d'affaires to the PeruBolivian confederation, with a mission to Ecuador. With the latter he negotiated a treaty, and then proceeded to his post at Lima, where he arrived in August, 1839, and continued in the discharge of the duties of his office till May, 1845. He drew, for his salary and the contingent expenses of the legation, bills of exchange on Baring Brothers, in London; and on these bills he alleges that he sustained a loss through the difference of exchange, a loss which he did not charge in the settlement of his accounts, and for which he was allowed nothing. He now petitions that his accounts may be reopened and he may be paid for this alleged loss.

On examination it appears that it has been the practice of the Government since 1846 to allow for losses arising from the difference of exchange, and this practice is founded upon an opinion of the AttorneyGeneral, Mr. Mason, dated July 20, 1846, in the case of Henry A. Wise, our minister to Rio.

Mr. Pickett's accounts were adjusted before this practice seems to have begun, and no claim was made by him at that time. He gives as a reason for this that he was "not aware that any precedent to restore such losses had been established." He now relies on the precedent established in the case of his successor (John Randolph Clay), whose accounts were opened and adjusted in order that he might be allowed for a similar loss, in conformity with a joint resolution bearing date the 20th of February, 1861.

Mr. Clay was appointed in 1847, and continued to discharge the duties of minister to Peru till the date of the resolution mentioned above. When he presented his claim the Department declined to consider it on the ground that his case fell within a long-established rule, "that settlements of accounts of individuals against the United States are not to be opened for readjustment at the instance of such individuals unless new and distinct facts are shown, by legal and sufficient evidence, to justify such opening and settlement." The committee to whom his case was referred considered, however, that the neglect of Mr. Clay to charge the losses claimed ought not to be construed as an abandonment of the claim, and that he could not be fairly charged with knowledge of the fact that his claim would be regarded by the Department as coming within the rule above laid down.

In the present case the committee do not think that any sound reason exists for a departure from this rule. Mr. Pickett was satisfied with the settlement of his accounts when it was made, and was not aware of any ground for a claim on his part. Some parts of his claim are more than thirty years old. The matter has been settled for almost twenty-five years, and whatever may have been the original merits of Mr. Pickett's claim, the committee do not think that they are such as to warrant the opening of accounts which have been settled for a quarter of a century. To do so now would be to establish a precedent of which every diplomatic agent of the Government since its foundation, or his legal representatives, might justly claim to take advantage. Under these circumstances and to avoid establishing this precedent, the committee recommend that the petition be rejected, and append to their report a letter from Mr. Tayler, the Comptroller of the Treasury, which relates to the case:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE,
July 11, 1868.

SIR: I return herewith the letter and papers from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs relative to the claim of J. Ĉ. Pickett for alleged loss in the sale of his

drafts drawn by him for salary while acting as chargé d'affaires and minister to some of the South American republics some twenty years since.

The committee ask your opinion as to the merits of Mr. Pickett's application, and what would be the effect of opening his accounts as a precedent for other similar cases.

Mr. Pickett's accounts have been long since adjusted, but I do not find that he claimed to have sustained any loss in the sale of his drafts, and none was allowed or paid him; from which the presumption is that none was sustained.

Whether there is or is not merit in the claim can not be stated in the absence of evidence upon the fact of loss or of no loss.

The opening of Mr. Pickett's accounts will, of course, be a precedent for similar action in other like cases, if any exist. Whether they do exist I am unable to state; but their existence is quite probable.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. H. McCULLOCH,

Secretary of the Treasury.

R. W. TAYLER, Comptroller.

FORTIETH CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION.

March 1, 1869.

[Senate Report No. 270.]

Mr. Sumner, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred "the petition of Jonathan Elliot, late commercial agent of the United States at San Domingo and Porto Plata, praying compensation for services rendered and reimbursements for money expended in negotiating a treaty with the Dominican Republic in 1856," have had the same under consideration and beg leave to submit the following report:

The facts in this case appear to be these: The petitioner was appointed commercial agent of the United States for San Domingo and Porto Plata on the 5th of November, 1847, and continued to hold this office till about the 1st of January, 1863. During this time, on the 5th of October, 1855, he was appointed to negotiate a special treaty with the Dominican Republic, and was employed in this business about two months. In carrying on this negotiation he employed two secretaries, one for himself and one for the commissioners on the part of the Dominican Republic, to act as translators, both of whom he paid out of his own purse to the amount of $616 in gold. He asks to be repaid this sum, and also prays compensation for his services. It appears from the records of the State Department that he received $500 for his expenses, and Mr. Marcy, the Secretary of State at the time, refused to pay the salaries of the secretaries, on the ground that he had not been authorized to employ such assistance, and because the compensation paid him was understood to cover all expenses.

Mr. Seward says that his "impression is that the claim has no just foundation." It would seem, then, that he had received $500 as compensation for two months' services; that this was intended to cover all expenses, although the expenses alone appear to have been greater than the amount received. At this late day, after the considerable time which has elapsed, and in view of the refusal of the State Department to recognize the validity of the claim when all the circumstances were fresh, and the impression of the present Secretary of State that "the claim has no just foundation," the committee do not think it ought to be recognized now. Accordingly they report against it.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »